You're the guy who used to refer to bitcoin as "segwit coin" remember?

What of it? I stand by the statement. Do you find the disambiguation as 'SegWit Coin' perjorative? Are you embarrassed by SegWit? I maintain that the term 'SegWit Coin' is a useful disambiguation which makes it quite clear that one is referring to the BTC fork of Bitcoin. Though, admittedly, some (quite a few, actually) silly insecure ninnies got their panties in a bunch over my use of the term. To appease such snowflakes, I have more recently been using the term 'Bitcoin Core', which still provides the same disambiguation, while reducing the incidence of [~triggering intensifies~].

Obviously I'm not embarrassed about SegWit because I don't feel the need to deride bitcoin by calling it 'segwit coin'.

If you're 'just fine with SegWit', then why does my referring to BTC as 'SegWit Coin' make you so upset?

As I clearly stated, I was not doing it to deride, but rather to disambiguate. But I guess you missed that in your rush to outrage.

In case you had not noticed, miners have always been happy to mine blocks large enough such that average wait tx latencies were darned near universally next-block or so. That is, until blocks became persistently full, making such performance impossible.

Who gives any shits about what miners want? It’s irrelevant. Same as what users want. That’s irrelevant too.

Either they mine or they don’t. So the incentives for mining are already built into bitcoin. Same with users. Either they use bitcoin or they don’t.

Again, in bitcoin incentives are already well established from the beginning. That’s what makes bitcoin so powerful as contrasted with the various shitcoin bitcoin wannabes.

You do realize miners vote?

The only vote miners get is upon which community vetted BIP they want to support.

In case you had not noticed, miners have always been happy to mine blocks large enough such that average wait tx latencies were darned near universally next-block or so. That is, until blocks became persistently full, making such performance impossible.

Who gives any shits about what miners want? It’s irrelevant. Same as what users want. That’s irrelevant too.

Either they mine or they don’t. So the incentives for mining are already built into bitcoin. Same with users. Either they use bitcoin or they don’t.

Again, in bitcoin incentives are already well established from the beginning. That’s what makes bitcoin so powerful as contrasted with the various shitcoin bitcoin wannabes.

You do realize miners vote?

The only vote miners get is upon which community vetted BIP they want to support.

We all learnt from UASF that miner flags don’t mean shit. If the community decides to soft fork, it will do so.

In case you had not noticed, miners have always been happy to mine blocks large enough such that average wait tx latencies were darned near universally next-block or so. That is, until blocks became persistently full, making such performance impossible.

Who gives any shits about what miners want? It’s irrelevant. Same as what users want. That’s irrelevant too.

Either they mine or they don’t. So the incentives for mining are already built into bitcoin. Same with users. Either they use bitcoin or they don’t.

Again, in bitcoin incentives are already well established from the beginning. That’s what makes bitcoin so powerful as contrasted with the various shitcoin bitcoin wannabes.

You do realize miners vote?

They choose how to direct their hashpower... that is b called correct. If you are trying to suggest that they have more power than they do, then that is an empirical question that you dumbass bcashers would like to assume that they are in charge of the direction of bitcoin, which does not seem to be the reality in bitcoin.

@jbreher So what is likely to happen if BCH-ABC or SV wants to implement another improvement of the protocol that a significant portion disagree with? Are groups of miners going to square off on two or more camps

To the extent that each side is entrenched in their way forward, this would seem likely. Just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp.

Quote

and cause more forks,

Perhaps. If one side defaults on the approach satoshi suggested -- colloquially known as a hash battle -- than a fork would seem inevitable. Again, just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp.

Quote

each fork being less secure since each have less hash rate?

If neither side capitulates, yes. Again, just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp. Of course, with a fairly pervasive narrative within Core of 'miners are evil', BTC may find other ways to lose hash security.

I will no longer be discussing that scamcoin Bcash in this thread. This isn't the give Bcash undeserved limelight observation thread nor is it two desperate Bcash fanboys and wall observation users fight.

Fuck Bcash, fuck Ver, fuck Jihan, fuck Craig and I feel sorry for all the fools who have drank the koolaid and sold bitcoins to buy these scam tokens and now need to imagine a fantasy land where they made a decent decision.

I will no longer be discussing that scamcoin Bcash in this thread. This isn't the give Bcash undeserved limelight observation thread nor is it two desperate Bcash fanboys and wall observation users fight.

Fuck Bcash, fuck Ver, fuck Jihan, fuck Craig and I feel sorry for all the fools who have drank the koolaid and sold bitcoins to buy these scam tokens and now need to imagine a fantasy land where they made a decent decision.